Rebranding the War In Iraq

[rabid1st]

I'm sitting her working on my writing and behind me Jan has the business news on...and the foreign affairs specialist talks about the new Iraq. He says, "We must try to redirect the Economic Insurgents." The newsperson provides us the following definition:

Economic Insurgents, those people who take money and then go into an area with an explosive device and blow themselves up thus creating a lack of consumer confidence.

Didn't we used to call those people Suicide Bombers?

It is good to have the gloves off when it comes to admitting this is all about the money. Especially as this is the business news and they are talking about Iraq as an "emerging market."

Now, I need a shower. Sheesh!

Comments

[keswindhover.livejournal.com]

I want to know why America has the best (read, worst) euphemisms for things. Your military blows my mind sometimes. And it must warp how the people who come out with these things actually think about them, as well. I don't see how it couldn't.

[np-complete.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the worst thing about people blowing themselves up in crowded areas: the effect on consumer confidence.

(Some things are beyond satire, aren't they? *shudder*)

[joools.livejournal.com]

I know a good re-branding helps me to get over that 'not quite fresh' feeling.

And, really, any war could be spruced up with some April Fresh goodness. Personally, i prefer New Car smell but then, I'm a philistine.

[kojote.livejournal.com]

The term "economic insurgent" is a glib way of wording it, and then talking about the effect on consumer confidence is truly inane, but there is a logical and useful rationale behind the concept. And the core concept isn't intended as a way of sprucing up the war.

Rather the core concept is to differentiate between those who are fighting for ideological/religious/nationalist reasons and those who are fighting because they are unemployed in an economy with 50% unemployment and who have been 'hired' to fight or to carry out suicide attacks.

The reason for this differentiation is that when a large proportion of the 'insurgents' are fighting primarily because it is a job and they desperately need the money to support themselves or their families, foreign economic development/assistance (or to word it in the crass manner that is consistent with the way the US government has been pursuing it "paying them not to fight") is a feasible strategy for reducing the violence.

Arguably, it is necessary to kill the ideological/religious/nationalist insurgents. (I'd prefer trying to find a way to find a political solution, but the feasibility of this is dubious, per some Iraq specialists.) But I would definitely prefer paying off the 'economic insurgents' rather than the US-led forces indiscriminately killing all who oppose the occupation.

The Marshall Plan was a much more sophisticated, far-sighted, and comprehensive approach, but the underlying concept was the same: Promote democracy. Promote economic development. Give people a stake in peace so that they are less likely to take up arms.

I just wish our Iraq version were not so half-assed. Of the US funds allocated for development, not all that was allocated was disbursed, and of the funds that were disbursed, Halliburton, KBR, and their ilk skimmed about 90%.

Alas, most broadcast news prefers pithy and chirpy to detailed and well-analysed.